In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Purni Devi and Anr. v. Babu Ram and Anr. determined that under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ("Limitation Act"), the time spent by a plaintiff pursuing a case diligently and in good faith against the same party in an incorrect forum should be excluded when calculating the limitation period in a competent court.
Brief Facts
A suit for possession of property was filed by Purni Devi ("Plaintiff") against Babu Ram and another ("Defendants"). The Defendants were in possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the said suit. Thereafter, the said suit was tried accordingly and ultimately decreed in favour of the predecessors in interest of the Plaintiff, directing the Defendants to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the Plaintiff. The Defendants then filed the first and second appeal against the decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court and the said first and second appeals were dismissed in November 2000, finalizing the said decree in favour of the Plaintiff.
In December 2000, the Plaintiff's predecessor filed an application for execution of the finalised decree of November 2000 before the Ld. Tehsildar (Department of Settlement). This application was rejected in January 2005 due to it being filed in a court lacking proper jurisdiction as the office of Ld. Tehsildar (Department of Settlement) did not have appropriate jurisdiction to hear the said application.
Subsequently, in October 2005, the Plaintiff filed a fresh application for execution of the decree before the Ld. Munsiff ("Application"), which was dismissed for being time-barred under the (Jammu & Kashmir) J&K Limitation Act. The Plaintiff filed a revision application before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir wherein, the said revision application to the (Jammu & Kashmir) J&K High Court was also dismissed, affirming the Ld. Munsiff's order due to the Application being barred by limitation ("Impugned Order"). Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
Main issue for consideration
Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for an exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction while calculating the period of limitation. In this instance, the Hon'ble court had to determine if the time spent by the Plaintiff diligently pursuing the execution petition before the Ld. Tehsildar should be excluded while calculating the limitation period.
Supreme Court Judgement
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Impugned Order, making the following observations:
Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, applicable to Jammu and Kashmir, excludes the period of limitation when proceedings are pursued diligently and in good faith in a court that, due to a defect of jurisdiction or similar reasons, cannot entertain the case.In Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal Secy, Irrigation Department, the Supreme Court outlined the conditions to be satisfied under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act. The conditions are as follows:
- Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party.
- The prior proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith.
- The failure of the prior proceeding was due to a defect of jurisdiction or a similar cause.
- The earlier and latter proceedings relate to the same matter in issue.
- Both proceedings are in a court.
In the present case, the Supreme Court opined that these conditions were met. The Defendants did not provide substantial evidence to claim that the Plaintiff's predecessor approached the Ld. Tehsildar with a mala fide intention, lacking good faith, or knowing it was not the competent court to execute the decree.
The Plaintiff pursued the matter diligently and in good faith before what was believed to be the appropriate forum. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that this period should be excluded when computing the limitation period before the court with competent jurisdiction.
MHCO Comment: The Court has taken a mindful and progressive step towards litigants who approach wrong forums and suffer undue punishment for acts though incorrect, but committed in good faith and honest misunderstanding of the matter. While parties must diligently pursue matters before the appropriate forum, this judgment cautions, but also aids those who, in good faith, have initiated proceedings in the wrong forum. It emphasizes that such proceedings should not be barred by limitation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.